Cease and desist letter for Outpatient

[nochay]

I have warned you multiple times via email,msn,icq,postal mail,personal messages, and I am finally taking it public. The following, found in the "I'm blacking out!" thread is a highly gross, and unethical use of my client's company trade mark "Tree Co" Pictured below is the company logo:

/\Tree Co:
||Helping Grow Healthy Trees For 50 Years!
||1953 - 2003

And the offending misuse of my clients logo:

/\...... If you're going to listen to anyone
||...... around here regarding such advice,
||...... then Mick's the one.

I order you to immediately stop using this forgery of my clients logo, and desist using it immediately! My client is concerned that his hard work will be diluted by your obvious excuse for a logo. You can lease the logo for a limited time, at the price of $500,000 for every logo "impression". This rate will be going up soon, as Rampant "piracy" of my clients logo has gone too far. You are also supposed to pay a fine of not more then 5.6 billion dollars for the following:

Logo Violation
Trademark Violation
Racketering Charges
Wire Fraud
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
anything else we see fit to slap you with.

My client will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

Signed,

Jack Frost
Attorney At Law

Defendant:

"Tree Co Inc"
555 Tree Co Lane
C/O Darl Mcbride
Salt Lake City Utah 66666

It'a joke! You found the easter egg!!! Just fooling with you. Like how Mcbride branched out?

[JacobM5727]

thats my logo, for my tree company!! theives

next thing i know you will be lifting my tent to snatch the sweet sweet olives within!!

[vass0922]

no way thats mine!

I licensed that from you 10 years ago, including the rights to license it out to other people! I'll sue you for suing other people for your intellectual property rights!

[shahani]

anything else we see fit to slap you with

[Heavy_Equipment]

I was expecting the law firm to be Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.

[Droppyale]

what did I miss?

[OuTpaTienT]

Ok fine. My lawyer has advised me to cease and desist your tree logo. So I did.

  .                     .     ...Z. .  .
         Z$                   .IIO.$IID8    
..$?OII$. .               $IIII$I77I$I7.
.IIIIIIII.I$             ..888III?IIIIIO
.OI$IZIIIIIID.             .  8IIIZDNNNN
III$II$IZOND8Z...    .$IIIZ. .$III7D8.  
IONI,III$D8IIIIIIO. $IIIIIII$IIIIII$8   
DD.8IIIII$IIIII$IIIII7O7IIIIOIIIIIIZD.  
  .I7II777IIIIII77II7777IIIIIIIIIII88.  
  .IIIIII7IIIIII7,I7Z,IIIIIIIIIIII$D.   
  .8IIIIIIIIIIIIII$$OI7IIIII$IIIIZD8... 
.  .D$IIIIIIIIIIII7$7IIIIIIIIIIDDDO.    
    .8DDOZIIIIIIIIIII7$I7IIIIDD8.       
      ..OOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID.         
        .8IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDD.         
         .8IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDD.          
        . .88IIIIIIIIIIII8DD. .         
        .  .8DIIIIIIIIII8D8             
             .8IIIIIIIIIDO              
             . OIIIIIIID8.              
               .OIIZ$IIO8 .             
               .8IIIIIII8               
                OIIIIIIID.         _________________________________________    
               .8IIIIIIZO.                                                  \
            ..Z,7=$IDZ8::7Z.                                                 \
            Z:,,$,:$O:,::,,I.                                                 \
            OIO7IION887$O77N8                                                 /
            .DNNNN88 .888888..                (dead tree logo)               /
                                   _________________________________________/

 

As for monies owed to you, my lawyer said to say this:

We have already seen that the earlier discussion of deviance is not quite equivalent to a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the natural general principle that will subsume this case is rather different from a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the notion of level of grammaticalness delimits a parasitic gap construction. Clearly, the descriptive power of the base component cannot be arbitrary in problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. It may be, then, that an important property of these three types of EC appears to correlate rather closely with the strong generative capacity of the theory. And furthermore...

Analogously, this selectionally introduced contextual feature is, apparently, determined by the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is not quite equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Conversely, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial raises serious doubts about the traditional practice of grammarians. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the descriptive power of the base component suffices to account for nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. To characterize a linguistic level L, any associated supporting element is to be regarded as an abstract underlying order.

So there. Agree?

[osprey4]

PWTMST!

Or possibly, FPWTMST.

[sixf00t4]

so is IC a good lawyer OuT?

[nomaxim]

Originally posted by sixf00t4
so is IC a good lawyer OuT?